This site still under construction.  There will definitely be more to come.

Agenda 21 EXPLAINED, full version 

Presented 11/28/2011 Copyright 2011 John Anthony

Here is a detailed presentation on what is really in Agenda 21 and the sustainable development movement as defined by the UN. How it will ultimately compromise your property rights..

Regarding Ms. Bruntdland: Some have suggested she is merely a Democrat and I am way off base. First off, Norway does not have a Democratic Party, but rather Socialist democrats. Hopefully there is a difference. Internet research can be a challenge, so I respect those who engage in it! However, check out the XX Congress of the Socialist International in NY. Gro was the first VP of the Socialist International whose goal is to interact with labour, social democrats and socialists worldwide to spread the socialist concept of democracy. It is quite possible to be member of the Democratic Party and a Socialist at the same time. It is members like Gro whose desire it is to move the Democratic party more toward the Social Democratic Party.

I also want to thank "6or8pack" for pointing out my error in mentioning that Betty Perry's nose was injured by handcuffs. In fact, she slipped during her interaction with officers and hit her nose on the steps. Betty was aware of local ordinances, but chose to ignore them. This landed her in the holding pen. This error is mine.

Some have suggested they have "read Agenda 21 " and there is nothing dangerous in the book and besides, the document has no power to override their Constitutional right to own and control private property.

To read the book alone, without reading the preceeding and following documentation and activites would be somewhat like looking at a map of Brazil and feeling you now know how Brazilians think and feel.

The name A21 refers not only to the actual book, but to the entire sustainable development movement as defined by the United Nations dating back to the 1970's through today. That is why it is important to not only listen to the entire video, but research on your own to gain more information. Since this presentation was completed vast new volumes of information have been compiled. Check the sources in the back of the presentation and the United Nation's own websites to draw your own conclusions.

Thanks for viewing the video and for your observations. John

Presented 11/28/2011 Copyright 2011 John Anthony

Morning Bell: Agenda 21 and the Threat in Your Backyard

From The Foundry

Mike Brownfield
December 5, 2011 at 9:51 am

Ready to trade in your car for a bike, or maybe a subway instead? Interested in fewer choices for your home, paying more for housing, and being crammed into a denser neighborhood? You can have all this and more if radical environmentalists and “smart growth” advocates have their way and local, state, and the federal government impose the policies set forth in the United Nations’ Agenda 21.

You might have heard of this nefarious-sounding policy in a recent Republican presidential debate, but even if you haven’t, here’s some background information: Agenda 21 is a voluntary plan adopted at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. It calls on governments to intervene and regulate nearly every potential impact that human activity could have on the environment. The end goal? Getting governments to “rethink economic development and find ways to halt the destruction of irreplaceable natural resources and pollution of the planet.”

As adopted, Agenda 21 was described as “a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.” That includes hundreds of specific goals and strategies that national and local governments are encouraged to adopt. And that translates into restrictive zoning policies that are aimed at deterring suburban growth. Ultimately, they suppress housing supply and drive up home prices, in turn imposing unnecessary costs, especially on middle- and lower-income households. These policies contributed to and aggravate the real estate bubble by putting inflationary pressures on housing prices.

But here’s the catch: Nothing about Agenda 21 is binding, and it’s not a threat in and of itself. Instead, the threat Americans need to be concerned about is the one that lies in their own backyard. In a new paper, “Focus on Agenda 21 Should Not Divert Attention from Homegrown Anti-Growth Policies,” Wendell Cox, Ronald Utt, Brett Schaefer explain:

Opponents of Agenda 21 should not be distracted from the more tangible manifestation of the smart-growth principles outlined in that document. If they focus excessively on Agenda 21, it is much more likely that homegrown smart-growth policies that date to the early 1970s and undermine the quality of life, personal choice, and property rights in American communities will be implemented by local, state, and federal authorities at the behest of environmental groups and other vested interests.

In the United States, smart-growth policies started in California and Oregon but then spread around the country to “deter suburban growth for all but the well-to-do,” as Cox, Utt, and Schaefer explain. They also write that those policies were not without detrimental impact:

As they became more prevalent and restrictive, their impact on housing prices and construction likewise expanded. An explosion of exclusionary zoning throughout the U.S. encouraged many communities to adopt zoning policies to ensure that they maintained a certain demographic ‘profile.’ Such zoning limited real estate development to higher-cost homes in order to ‘price out’ moderate-income households, which included a disproportionate share of minorities.

Where do these home-grown smart-growth policies stand today? The Obama Administration has embraced them while also increasing environmental regulations and restrictions on the use of natural resources. But the White House isn’t the only one behind the smart-growth movement. Local and state officials, along with interest groups, are promoting the policies at all levels of government.

And that’s where smart growth must also be thwarted. It’s not just a matter of standing against the implementation of Agenda 21 at the national level; it’s also about protecting our own backyards against the home-grown threat.

Quick Hits:

Posted in American Leadership 


This is an article I found on CNN Politics, dated November 18, 2011.  It explains a bit about Agenda 21.  Oh, and it sounds like Newt is against it.

What's with Newt Gingrich and Agenda 21?

Posted by
CNN Political Correspondent Jim Acosta

(CNN) - If you weren't listening closely to Newt Gingrich at the last GOP debate, you might have missed it.

"I would adopt a very strong policy towards the United Nations of dramatically taking on its absurdities," the former House Speaker said. "I would explicitly repudiate what Obama has done on Agenda 21 as the kind of interference from the United Nations," he then added.

Did you catch that? Agenda 21. What exactly is Agenda 21?

The United Nations adopted Agenda 21 as part of a global initiative to combat climate change at the 1992 Earth Summit in Brazil.

According to the U.N.'s website, "Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment."

Even though the U.S. government is not legally bound by the initiative, local governments across the country have implemented some of its strategies for sustainable development. Smart growth, transportation planning, and limited rural development are all Agenda 21 goals.

But some tea party groups see the potential for abuse. Conservative activists have petitioned local governments to scrap their Agenda 21 plans out of fear the initiative could one day interfere with personal property rights.

Fears of Agenda 21 cropped up at a meeting of the Carroll County Board of Commissioners in Maryland in August.

"Everywhere I go today people, particularly in the tea party, are very worried about Agenda 21," Gingrich told a tea party crowd in July.

"It's part of a general problem of the United Nations and other international bureaucracies that are seeking to create an extra constitutional control over us. And I reject that model totally," he added.

The former speaker's comments are posted on his YouTube page. He tweeted out a link to the video after Saturday's South Carolina debate, co-sponsored by CBS News and National Journal.

Gingrich warned the crowd Agenda 21 could potentially be used to seize the private property of American citizens.

"It's a United Nations proposal to create a series of centralized planning provisions where your local city government can't do something because of some agreement they signed with some private group who are all committed to taking control of your private property and turning it into a publicly controlled property," Gingrich said.

The rising GOP contender promised another tea party crowd in September he would take quick action to block the initiative if he's elected president: "That's probably going to be one of the first executive orders and that is to cease all funding for any kind of activity for United Nations Agenda 21."

But Agenda 21 detractors have critics of their own. Phil Stoddard, mayor of the tiny city of South Miami in Florida, says Gingrich is playing on conservative fears.

"I think they're out of their minds," Stoddard said.

A passionate believer in the threat of climate change, Stoddard said his city adopted Agenda 21 to ease traffic congestion and cut down on pollution. Stoddard added local governments also learn from one another based on the results of Agenda 21-inspired smart growth initiatives.

"This is just a way for us to share information to combat climate change and promote sustainable development," Stoddard said.

On the campaign trail in Iowa earlier in the week, Gingrich acknowledged to reporters Agenda 21 is not legally binding.

"It is part of a treaty that has never been endorsed by the (U.S.) Senate and I don't think the federal government should be in the process of implementing something that the Senate has not approved," he said.

So why bring it up?

"Because it's being implemented at the local level," Gingrich responded.

Climate change is a touchy subject for Gingrich. In 2008, he appeared in an ad with then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to deliver a call for national action to combat global warming. In his run for the GOP presidential nomination, Gingrich has told reporters the ad was a mistake.


What is Agenda 21?

I've been hearing about Agenda 21 for awhile now, but I didn't know what it was.  I was pretty sure by the bits I had read and heard about it that it wasn't good, but I was afraid to read more.  I have enough problems sleeping already.  I just didn't want one more thing to worry about, especially one I didn't know how to change.  I'm just starting to stand up about the things I already know about.  I was sure I couldn't do anything about this.

Well, I changed my mind.  I decided the least I could do was watch this video and then make sure I tell as many people as possible.  Please watch this video and wake up to what's happening in our country to slowly erode our rights and freedoms. 

I've tried as much as possible to stay away from sites that might be considered conspiracy sites, but with Agenda 21 it all sounds like one big conspiracy theory.  Study it for yourself.  I'm sure if you think about it and look around your city and local community you will see where this is happening where you live.  Stand up!  Get involved!  Do something!  Make your voice heard a community meetings and town halls.  Show up and be heard.  Don't let them fool you with the pretty talk about Social Justice, Sustainability, or any of the other fluffy, lighthearted words they use to distract you.  I have found some sites that will give you some helpful information.  I got the following two, EXCELLENT, videos from Freedom Advocates.  I found lots of helpful information there. 

There are plenty of websites if you just google 'Agenda 21'.  I tried to stay away from any that seemed too crazy.  The problem is that Agenda 21 does sound too crazy to be true, but its not.

This is wrong.  Wrong for us and wrong for our country.  Look around you. When the video mentions certain types of neighborhoods where you both live and work in the same building, I immediately thought of three different complexes of this type near me.  They even look similar.  Watch these two videos and please share them with your friends and co-workers.  We need to wake up!  After all, did we ever think there would be an actual socialist who surrounds himself with communists in the White House?

The first video is called "Agenda 21 - Part 1" and the second is called, "The Philosophy of Liberty".  I found both videos extremely interesting and helpful.  I was a little nervous about "The Philosophy of Liberty", because the article mentions Ron Paul.  So, let me just say while I don't support Ron Paul politically and I think he's a bit loony, he has many ideas I agree with.  Apparently this is one of them.  There is a website calledThe Philosophy of Liberty where you can get more information about this.

Now the videos:

1.    Uploaded by on Aug 22, 2011

Agenda 21 - PartOne--Introduction and Property Rights - How Agenda 21 affects or will affect every living human; and its three pronged offensive: Strip Property Rights, (mis)Education, and Depopulation.

2.  The philosophy of liberty is based on self-ownership. This simple but elegant and hard-hitting animation will explain exactly what that means. It's a great tool anyone can use to educate children and adults about our right to life, liberty, and the property we create - and our responsibility to think, speak and act.

For more info and/or to download a free DVD version of this video, see: 

From The Blaze:


Several conservative members of the Supreme Court criticized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Monday for heavy-handed enforcement of rules affecting homeowners after the government told an Idaho couple they can’t challenge an order declaring their future home site a “protected wetlands.”
Justice Antonin Scalia assailed the “high-handedness” of the environmental agency when dealing with private property, and Justice Samuel Alito described some of the EPA’s actions as “outrageous,“ arguing that most people would say ”this kind of thing can’t happen in the United States.”
The EPA said that Mike and Chantell Sackett illegally filled in most of their 0.63-acre lot with dirt and rocks in preparation for building a home. The agency said the property is a wetlands that cannot be disturbed without a permit. The Sacketts had none.Mike and Chantell Sackett (Image Courtesy: Business Insider)
The couple, who attended the Supreme Court arguments, said they had no reason to suspect there were wetlands on their property. They paid $23,000 for their property in 2005 and decided two years later to build a three-bedroom home. Workers spent three days filling in just under a half-acre of land.
Three EPA officials showed up, said they believed the land was wetlands, asked for a permit and told the workers to stop. Six months later, the EPA sent the order that triggered the court case. The Sacketts wanted to challenge that order, but lower courts have said that they cannot.
The EPA issues nearly 3,000 administrative compliance orders a year that call on alleged violators of environmental laws to stop what they‘re doing and repair the harm they’ve caused. Major business groups, homebuilders, road builders and agricultural interests all have joined the Sacketts in urging the court to make it easier to contest EPA compliance orders issued under several environmental laws.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wondered how far the Supreme Court should go in a
The Sacketts’ lawyer, Damien M. Schiff, argued that they weren‘t trying to take away EPA’s power. Environmental groups say a purpose of the orders is to make it easier to negotiate a resolution without a protracted legal fight.
Watch the MRC TV news brief:
“Let EPA administer the act and issue compliance orders,” Schiff said. “But let’s also give homeowners a fair shake, too. Let them have their day in court to contest what the agency has done.”
Alito leveled some of the strongest criticism against the EPA, noting that the Sacketts had to wait until the EPA sued them to even challenge the idea that there were wetlands on their property.
“You think maybe there is a little drainage problem in part of your lot, so you start to build the house and then you get an order from the EPA which says: ‘You have filled in wetlands, so you can’t build your house; remove the fill, put in all kinds of plants; and now you have to let us on your premises whenever we want to,’” Alito said. “You have to turn over to us all sorts of documents, and for every day that you don’t do all this you are accumulating a potential fine of $75,000. And by the way, there is no way you can go to court to challenge our determination that this is a wetlands until such time as we choose to sue you.”
Chief Justice John Roberts said that because of the potential fines, few people are going to challenge the EPA’s determinations.
“Because of the administrative compliance order, you’re really never going to be put to the test, because most land owners aren’t going to say, ‘I’m going to risk the $37,000 a day,” Roberts said. “All EPA has to do is make whatever finding it wants, and realize that in 99 percent of the cases, it’s never going to be put to the test.”
The EPA’s normal procedure is to contact the homeowner before issuing a compliance order, Justice Department lawyer Malcolm Stewart said. A wetlands biologist has also confirmed to The Associated Press that he advised the Sacketts in May 2007 that their property was a wetlands and that there were wetlands on three sides of their land. The Sacketts say that in 2010, other wetlands consultants examined their land and concluded that the first one was wrong.
However, critics argue these type of regulations, and the tangled mess of paperwork that accompanies them, are unwarranted, unfair and have been enacted with no real authority.
And while judicial activism has become a recent topic of discussion due to the GOP primaries, the question of federal authority in these areas has also been brought to the forefront of a national debate.
Why? Because much like Justices Scalia, Roberts and Alito, many Americans believe departments such as the EPA have been acting well outside the boundaries of their authority. Speaking of which, who gave them authority?
For some perspective, we turn to conservative author Mark Steyn:

For more and more Americans, law has been supplanted by “regulation”–a governing set of rules not legislated by representatives accountable to the people, but invented by an activist bureaucracy, much of which is well to the left of either political party. As the newspapers blandly reported in 2010, the bureaucrats weren’t terribly bothered about whether Congress would pass a cap-and-trade mega-bill into law because, if faint-hearted Dems lose their nerve, the EPA will just “raise” “standards” all by itself.*

Indeed, to borrow from Steyn again, “Where do you go to vote out the EPA?”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
*Mark Steyn, “After America: Get Ready For Armageddon.” (Washington, D.C: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2011) 82.

Agenda 21 Is Repackaged Socialism, Unsustainable Development

by Chriss W. Street (From Big

This year marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the United Nation’s Brundtland Report, which defined Sustainable Development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” But aristocratic socialists have corrupted the sustainable development movement into a vehicle to achieve vast administrative power for themselves. Nations that adopt Sustainable Development are doomed to fail at meeting the needs of the present generation and through debt accumulation from deficit spending will consign future generations to a life as debt slaves.

Through the early 1980s, socialist Latin American economies powered growth by quadrupling their indebtedness from $75 billion to $315 billion. With aristocrats controlling government, while the poor had no voice in these loan matters, nor did they benefit from them as most of the loan proceeds were siphoned off to benefit the aristocrats and their crony amigos.

When Ronald Reagan was elected President in 1980, the U.S. economy had suffered a decade of stagflation, turning our Midwest manufacturing base into the Rust Belt. Reagan was determined to regain international economic dominance by reasserting our Founding Father’s demand for limited government and maximum personal liberty. Reagan viscerally believed what John Adams wrote:

“ the moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence”

Reagan’s relentless focus overcame the bi-partisan drumbeat to continue the socialist expansion of the money supply to promote growth. He then leveraged monetary restraint with the largest income tax cut in American history to power the American economy to sustained growth with low inflation.

The inflated prices of raw material exports that Latin American socialists relied upon to pay their inflated debts, plunged by 40%. Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina became insolvent as per capita GDP fell by 9% between 1980 and 1985 and 50% of their people fell into poverty. Popular uprisings drove Brazil’s military junta and Argentine’s authoritarian regime, from power. In desperation, Latin nations turned to the U.S. dominated International Monetary Fund as lender-of- last-resort. But IMF support came with mandatory demands for austerity budget cuts, public industry privatizations, and elimination of trade barriers to shrink socialist power. By 1987, the capitalist U.S. economy was the world’s growth engine and a tidal wave of foreign investment was pouring into capitalist friendly Latin economies. World socialism was in shambles as the Soviet Union disintegrated and China embraced the market economy. The release of the Brundtland Report was seen as recognition of the burgeoning capitalist globalized economy.

By 1992 memories of the pain of the Latin American Debt Crisis were fading. Aristocrats repackaged socialist plans to again usurp economic power into Agenda 21 and introduced this socialist manifesto at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Agenda 21 envisioned bestowing the UN, government bureaucracies, and major interest groups the power to suspend the rights of property under law regarding all global, national and local human economic and social interaction that might affect the environment.

Agenda 21’s four main pillars of action are (1) combating poverty, promoting health, making consumption sustainable (2) assuring atmospheric protection, protecting fragile environments, conserving biodiversity, preventing pollution and regulating biotechnology (3) strengthening the roles of children, youth, women, NGOs, local authorities, workers and indigenous peoples (4) through science, technology transfer, education, international financial mechanisms.”

European aristocrats also quietly embedded Agenda 21 powers into the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, which united 17 sovereign nations under the three pillar structure of the European Union (1) prevent sovereign debt from exceed 60% of GDP (2) delegate authority to supranational decision makers authority to regulate all human economic and social interaction that might affect the environment (3) embrace the euro as their supranational currency.

With aristocratic socialists in control of supranational economic decision making, deficit spending became the preferred stimulus for European economic growth. From 1999 to 2008, the average debt to GDP for Eurozone nations grew from 50% to 70%. But as the Reinhart and Rogoff’s book: “This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly” famously warned in early 2009; “once a nation’s debt rises above the threshold of 90%, then growth rates fall.”

When Greece hit over 100% of debt to GDP later that year, rumors swirled the nation would default. Greek GDP shriveled and panicked depositors across Europe pulled their cash out of banks and the European Debt Crisis exploded. Total Eurozone debt now stands at a dangerous 87% of GDP and Greek short term interest rates are at 1400%. Supranational committees are enforcing austerity spending cuts, but the unemployment rate is at a depression level of 20% in Greece and 23% in Spain.

There is no Reaganesque figure today in Europe willing to battle entrenched aristocratic socialists in support of limited government and maximum personal liberty. Instead, the “present” generation of Europeans will continue to be impoverished until a future generation becomes unwilling to endure life of a debt slaves and violently over-throws their aristocratic masters

.Feel free to forward this Op Ed and or follow our Blog at

TUESDAY, 14 JUNE 2011 17:13
*In a report entitled "Your Hometown & the United Nations' Agenda 21" published in The New American's online edition for February 10,  journalist William F. Jasper warned:
The UN’s Agenda 21 is definitely comprehensive and global — breathtakingly so. Agenda 21 proposes a global regime that will monitor, oversee, and strictly regulate our planet’s oceans, lakes, streams, rivers, aquifers, sea beds, coastlands, wetlands, forests, jungles, grasslands, farmland, deserts, tundra, and mountains. It even has a whole section on regulating and “protecting” the atmosphere. It proposes plans for cities, towns, suburbs, villages, and rural areas. It envisions a global scheme for healthcare, education, nutrition, agriculture, labor, production, and consumption — in short, everything; there is nothing on, in, over, or under the Earth that doesn’t fall within the purview of some part of Agenda 21.
And things have not improved since. In case the American people do not have enough with which to concern themselves, The Blaze further draws our attention to Agenda 21, a Soros-sponsored plan for world government. Already two decades old, Agenda 21 is a United Nations plan for “sustainable development” that was backed by George H.W. Bush and 177 other world leaders. Despite its seemingly innocuous intentions, The Blaze notes that several items are at risk under the plan: private property ownership, single-family homes, private car ownership and individual travel choices, and privately-owned farms.
The American Policy Center says of Agenda 21:

According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity. Sustainablists insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.

In 1987, Vice President of the World Socialist Party Gro Harlem Brundtland wrote a report for the United Nations entitled "Our Common Future," which explained that environmentalism could be used as a tool to control all the people of the world and establish a one-world government. The Blaze contends that the growth of ICLEI [the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives] and the creation of Agenda 21 is a step toward bringing Brundtland’s ideas to life. After all, the term “sustainable development” was first introduced by Brundtland.
During the Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet, one of Agenda 21’s planners declared:

Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by every person on earth. … [I]t calls for specific changes in the activities of all people. … Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced.

While Agenda 21 was agreed to in 1992, Bill Clinton signed an Executive Order in 1995, establishing a Presidential Council on “Sustainable Development,” which essentially provided a permanent platform for the UN plan by circumventing the approval of both Congress and the American people.
Following the establishment of the Council on Sustainable Development, J. Gary Lawrence, Council advisor to President Clinton, revealed:

Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society. … This segment of our society who fear "one-world government" and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined "the conspiracy" by undertaking LA21 [Local Agenda 21]. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.

Agenda 21 is supported by ICLEI, which has been funded by George Soros. In fact, in 1997, George Soros’ Open Society provided $2,147,415 to ICLEI in order to support its Local Agenda 21 Project. According toThe Blaze, “This type of global plan could not be implemented without a large and well-funded group pushing through its priorities. For that, Agenda 21 has the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). And ICLEI is deeply entrenched in America.”
ICLEI’s website reads:

ICLEI USA was launched in 1995 and has grown from a handful of local governments participating in a pilot project to a solid network of more than 600 cities, towns and counties actively striving to achieve tangible reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and create more sustainable communities. ICLEI USA is the domestic leader on climate protection and adaptation, and sustainable development at the local government level.

More than 600 cities in the United States are members of ICLEI, though most residents of those cities are unaware that their local governments are agreeing to rules and regulations dictated by a UN-based organization regarding property rights.
As observed by The Blaze, “sustainable development” is a more pleasant term for “social justice/socialism,” described by Agenda 21 as the right of the people “to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.” In layman’s terms, "social justice" is the justification for wealth redistribution.
The American Policy Center explains that Agenda 21’s support of wealth redistribution justifies private property restrictions, because to the proponents, private property “is a social injustice since not everyone can build wealth from it.”
This aspect of Agenda 21 should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the United Nations. UN officials have never been fond of individual ownership of land, asserting the following during a UN Conference on Human Settlements:

Land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of society as a whole.

The American Policy Center indicates that Agenda 21 has manifested itself in a variety of local projects, including Smart Growth, the Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, STAR Sustainable Communities, and most "green" initiatives including green building codes.
Cities pay dues to ICLEI so that the organization may provide community plans, software, and training. The relationship between local cities and ICLEI is funded primarily by government and foundation grants.
In California, Agenda 21 is already working on plans for sustainable management of open spaces. Debate over what open space entails has highlighted divisions between those who are directing the planning meetings and American citizens, including liberal Democrats, who are still interested in protecting private property rights.
In Austin, Texas, the city council approved an “Energy Conservation Ordinance” in 2008. The ordinance adds a new chapter to the city code relating to energy conservation audit and disclosure requirements, and creates an offense and imposes penalties.
Angered by the city council’s consideration of the ordinance, a group called Texans for Accountable Government began to scrutinize the council’s adoption of Agenda 21-friendly initiatives. TAG Member John Bush delivered a brief but concise presentation on Agenda 21 and ICLEI just prior to the vote that ultimately approved the ordinance.
In addition to private property concerns, Agenda 21 is opposed to the free market system. The Blazereports:

In the world of business Agenda 21 is not a free market friend, preferring PPPs or Private Public Partnerships where the government decides which companies will receive tax breaks and are allowed to stay in business. In light of this realization, the cozy relationship between the current administration and GE (a company that paid no federal tax in 2010) should raise eyebrows. And the WH efforts to tell Boeing in which state they can operate seems to further bolster the belief that Agenda 21 ideals are already making headway in America.

Fortunately, a number of Americans are waking up and demanding that their towns and cities retract their membership from ICLEI. In fact, the Roanoke, Virginia, Tea Party is holding a rally this week in order to draw attention from their local government and ask that it remove itself from ICLEI.
Related article: Your Hometown & the United Nations' Agenda 21




Posted on July 31, 2011 at 1:07pm by Mike Opelka

Is the US government starting to implement the policies of the United Nation’s plan for global management of people and resources known as Agenda 21?  The latest efforts out of the Department of Transportation (DOT) seem to indicate this is happening. And they are starting by targeting America’s farming communities with costly and oppressive regulations.

In Late May, the DOT proposed a rule change for farm equipment, and if it this allowed to take effect, it will place significant regulatory pressure on small farms and family farms all across America – costing them thousands of dollars and possibly forcing many of them out of business. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), part of the Department of Transportation (DOT), wants new standards that would require all farmers and everyone on the farm to obtain a CDL (Commercial Drivers License) in order to operate any farming equipment. The agency is going to accomplish this by reclassifying all farm vehicles and implements as Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMVs).

(It is also important to note here that DOT Secretary Ray LaHood holds a seat on the newly created White House Rural Council. A powerful group whose members have ties to George Soros and The Center For American Progress.)

The move by the DOT appears to be “legislation through regulation.” By reclassifying all farm vehicles and implements as Commercial Vehicles, the federal government will now be able to claim regulatory control over the estimated 800,000 farm workers in America, at the same time, overriding the rights of the states.
This proposed change literally means family farms could no longer legally allow young workers, not old enough to drive and seniors who no longer drive on the public streets, to operate a tractor… even on the family’s private property.
Waco, TX television station KXXV has the story:


The proposed change also means ANYONE driving a tractor or operating any piece of motorized farming equipment would be forced to pass the same rigorous tests and fill out the same detailed forms and diaries required of semi-tractor trailer drivers. This reclassification would bury small farms and family farms in regulation and paperwork.
Some of the additional paperwork and regulation required:
  • Detailed logs would need to be kept by all drivers – hours worked, miles traveled, etc.
  • Vehicles would have to display DOT numbers
  • Drivers would need to pass a physical as well as a drug test – every two years.

The Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation (WFBF) is one of many farm organizations not happy about the idea and has sent the DOT a letter expressing this opinion:

“WFBF opposes any change in statue or regulatory authority that would reclassify implements of husbandry or other farm equipment as Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMVs)”

WFBF Director of Governmental Relations Karen Gefvert continues, explaining the excessive cost to farmers if this allowed to move forward:

“The proposed guidance by the FMCSA would result in an initial increased cost to each Wisconsin farmer and employee of $124 just for the CDL license, permit and test; not to mention the time and cost for the behind-the-wheel training that is several thousand dollars.”

Additionally, Illinois farmers believe this regulation will also force new restrictions on trucks used in crop-share hauling. (One estimate claims more than 30% of Illinois farmers utilize shared land.) These crop-share trucks are typically limited-use vehicles that often travel fewer than 3000 miles each year, mainly hauling crops from the fields to nearby grain elevators. To require them to follow the same rules as semis would also mean a farmer would be forced to purchase substantial insurance.
The Hancock Journal-Pilot covered the story:

Earlier this year, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) began to define crop-share tenant farmers as “for-hire“ carriers and implements of husbandry as ”commercial motor vehicles.“ The ”for-hire” designation for crop-share tenant farmers would have a dramatic effect on farmers because it voids exemptions from the Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) program and would require a minimum of $750,000 in insurance coverage for the farmer.

The DOT is holding hearings for public comment on the topic, but only through Monday, August 1st and farmers all across the country are rightfully concerned. No matter what the feedback is from the people who actually grow the food, it appears that the DOT’s mind is made up. Just last week, DOT Administrator Anna Ferro posted an Op-Ed addressing the controversial regulation. The opinion piece closes with this statement:

Everyone in this Administration – from President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Secretary LaHood on down – is committed to the long-term success of America’s agricultural industry. In many ways, agriculture is the backbone of our economy – feeding hundreds of millions of Americans and billions more around the world. As the largest user of freight transportation in the nation, the agricultural industry is also one of USDOT’s most important constituents. We hope that this comment period is the start of a new and productive relationship. We may not ultimately agree on every issue, but we will always listen — and do our best to help America’s farmers succeed.

(A personal aside, when someone tells you, “We may not ultimately agree on every issue, but we will always listen… ” it has always been my experience that they are going to do whatever they wanted to do in the first place. The “listening” was just to make you feel better.)
The FMCSA has said their intent is to create uniformity in how federal safety regulations are carried out across America. The farming community and many of the states that would be affected by this change feel differently. Almost to a man, the farming community believes this to be a local issue, best handled by state governments, and not some Washington DC agency.
To make a comment to the DOT visit their website. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the Federal electronic docket site. Or you can fax your comments here 1–202–493–2251.

H/T – All the active Farm Bureaus working to protect their rights and states rights. And to the ever-vigilent “Resist UN Agenda 21” groups (you know who you are) 

$76 Trillion to Engineer a Green Economy?

From The Foundry

Nicolas Loris
July 14, 2011 at 12:15 pm

A new report from the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs demonstrates that the U.N. has no business meddling in economic or social issues.

In a recently released World Economic and Social Survey entitled “The Great Green Technological Transformation,” the U.N. says our governments need to spend $1.9 trillion a year for 40 years in order to successfully transition to a global green economy. That’s a $76 trillion price tag for the green initiative, an initiative that won’t bring about economic prosperity nor improve our environmental well being.

Let’s take a step back to demonstrate the U.N.’s line of thinking. The U.N. has concerns that the earth is on course for disaster and in its overview of the survey lays out three possible solutions.

Solution 1: “One option for achieving this would be to limit income growth, as it would also, given existing production methods, limit the growth of resource use, waste and pollutants. However, doing so would complicate efforts to meet the development objective and would thus not be in the interest of developing countries, which are home to the vast majority of the world’s population.”

It’s safe to say that limiting income growth is not in the interest of any country and that doing so would harm our ability to protect and care for the environment. Not only do countries with higher income per capita and greater economic freedom have better environmental records, but they’re also better equipped to handle natural disasters. See Haiti and the Dominican Republic.

Solution 2: “Reducing population growth could be another option; but this could be achieved more effectively by improving living standards.”

Population control is a popular topic for those who advocate for sustainable development, but it is not the cause of poverty. Further, improving living standards in the second solution runs contradictory to limiting income growth proposed in the first.

Solution 3: “Reducing non-renewable energy and resource use, reducing waste and pollutants, and reversing land degradation and biodiversity losses would then seem key to greening the economy.”

The rest of the overview focuses on a global commitment to a green revolution and the notion that government should “promote the development of a broad portfolio of technologies (including renewable such as solar, wind, geothermal and hydropower) along the full chain of technology development (research, development and demonstration, market formation, diffusion and commercial adaptation).”

Notice that the largest supplier of carbon-free electricity, nuclear power, does not merit a mention. The only time nuclear receives a mention in the text of the overview is on graphs and when it says, “Global replacement costs of existing fossil fuel and nuclear power infrastructure are estimated at, at least, $15 trillion–$20 trillion.”

This U.N. report is a recipe to keep the developing world in poverty and with poor environmental standards. This proposal will do nothing to help tackle the real environmental challenges we face. It’s important to distinguish that the U.N. report focuses on reducing carbon dioxide, which is non-toxic and not a health hazard. It does not emphasize that these countries need access to clean drinking water, proper sewage systems, and other taken-for-granted needs that we’ve grown accustomed to having.

Furthermore, the developing world has serious economic challenges, such as gaining access to reliable electricity. Over 1.4 billion people in the developing world, mostly Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, are without electricity. Yet the U.N. wants to drive a global change that would force pricier, intermittent electricity to these areas. These countries do not need windmills and solar panels; they need property rights, the rule of law, and free trade. These are fundamentally critical to improved economic and environmental well being.



This free website was made using Yola.

No HTML skills required. Build your website in minutes.

Go to and sign up today!

Make a free website with Yola